"Compared to Labour, even you must admit, the official Conservative Brexit policy is a masterpiece of crystal clear lucidity!"

I might agree if you would tell us just what is the official Conservative Brexit policy, but as yet you have failed to do so.

"What reparations, if any, will we pay to the EU, What are we going to do with European citizens residing in the UK, what will our relationship with Europe regarding Security be, what are we going to do regarding fishing, farming, banking, insurance and a multitude of other issues."

You state that "Reparations will not be paid" is that official Conservative party policy?

Raggy, are you aware of Albert Einstein’s spot-on definition of ‘insanity’? Applies perfectly here. He hasn’t a single clue, and hasn't the cojones to confess it, so he constantly resorts to deflection. It’s what R-WEs do.

I have stated before: Reparations will not be paid(Reparation. The compensation for war damage paid by a defeated state.) I have also stated before I do not believe in scrying, divination or cleromancy. Perhaps I need to use chlorine washed chicken bones to make it work.

Compared to Labour, even you must admit, the official Conservative Brexit policy is a masterpiece of crystal clear lucidity!

Nice try Iains but my questions reiterated on the 19th came after you said the Labor party had no policy on Europe.

"So perhaps you could tell us if we are going to leave on the 31st October, before that date, after that date, with a deal, without a deal. What reparations, if any, will we pay to the EU, What are we going to do with European citizens residing in the UK, what will our relationship with Europe regarding Security be, what are we going to do regarding fishing, farming, banking, insurance and a multitude of other issues."

As I also asked then "Any coherent, cohesive and consistent Conservative Brexit policy yet"

As some seem incapable of finding it themselves, here is the oft repeated question from Raggytash

So perhaps you could tell us if we are going to leave on the 31st October, before that date, after that date, with a deal, without a deal. What reparations, if any, will we pay to the EU, What are we going to do with European citizens residing in the UK, what will our relationship with Europe regarding Security be, what are we going to do regarding fishing, farming, banking, insurance and a multitude of other issues.

Wild unsubstantiated allegations and opinions.The only point with a grounding in reality is Number 4 but that is applicable to the Irish Republic, not the north, and it is Varadkar saying it. The economy may shrink up to 8% and the State risks a return to dramatic public expenditure cuts and possibly 50000 more unemployed and the south will have to police the border. Ireland has been played for a sucker by the EU and now reality is sinking in. Varakar has stirred the pot for months and the resultant mess of pottage is now giving his electorate severe indigestion. I doubt he will be re elected.

Latest You Gov survey of voting intent should there be a General Election.

The Conservative Party is tied with the Brexit Party inthe latest YouGov/Times Westminster voting intention survey, on 22% of the vote. Last week’s poll saw the Brexit Party in the lead with 23% and the Conservatives on a par with Labour at 20%.

Labour follows the Conservatives and the Brexit Party on 20%. The Liberal Democrats have dropped 2 percentage points since last week, from 21% last week to 19%.

So Southern Water has been fined a record £126m for serious breaches of the environmental standards.

What has that to do with Brexit, I hear you ask? Well, the standards are set by the EU. No doubt we could, and probably will, carry them over after Brexit, if only because we don't have time to rethink them. But any time from then on, they could be lowered under pressure from the water companies. After all, "taking back control" means choosing the balance between business interests and customer interests, doesn't it?

About time a Guardian/Observer hack was taken to task for spreading false news. Interesting that she claims she is being bullied when a victim resorts to the courts to clear his name.On the Ted Talk she said “And I’m not even going to go into the lies that Arron Banks has told about his covert relationship with the Russian Government.” I suspect the court will insist she goes into it and reveals all, chapter and verse, in excruciating detail. Otherwise it could cost.

I think she is upset that she is singled out, not the newspaper,or the program. But in both cases she is sole author so no one else to share the blame. The bar was recently raised for defamation and the number of cases has declined. However Another reason for the decline – on social media in particular – is that a handful of high-profile lawsuits have acted as a deterrent.

Katie Hopkins was ordered to pay £24,000 in damages to Jack Monroe in 2017 after defaming the food blogger on Twitter.

In 2013, Lord McAlpine won a libel claim against Sally Bercow, wife of House of Commons Speaker John, over her tweet following a Newsnight report wrongly implicating the Tory peer in allegations of child sex abuse.

Nicola Cain, co-author of Defamation: Law, Procedure and Practice, which is published by Thomson Reuters, said: “The message is finally starting to get through to users that they need to be extremely careful what they say when posting online.

Aaron Banks is suing Carole Cadwalladr for defamation on two grounds; she claimed in a speech two weeks ago that “We know the Russian Government offered money to Arron Banks.” Secondly, in the Ted Talk she said “And I’m not even going to go into the lies that Arron Banks has told about his covert relationship with the Russian Government.”

Banks says he took no money and he has no covert relationship. Now he is going to sue her to prove it or pay up…

Further spiffing news the Brexit party have today announced that they are to legally challenge the result of the Peterborough by-election. I would suggest they have some convincing data to contemplate such a step.

There are rumours Mr Banks will donate his winnings to the brexit party. She may end up the largest donor to the Brexit Party. How sweet is that!

I'm a bit undecided whether this should be on the Tory Leadership thread or here, but I had to make a choice.

There is a fair bit in the press about Boris possibly losing a no confidence vote if he presses for no deal. The basis for these claims seem to be that some Tory MPs have said they would vote for a no confidence motion.

But that leave Kate Hoey and a few others out of the equation. I am not at all convinced she would vote no-confidence, and the more it is about no deal rather than the tory party, the less likely she is to do so.

The Irish prime minister, Leo Varadkar, said he hoped for an "early meeting" with the new incumbent in Downing Street, who is due to be chosen by the Tory membership in the last week of July. He said: "I am conscious of the fact that notwithstanding their support for Brexit, their strong support of Brexit, both of the two people that are now going forward to the members of the British Conservative party actually voted for the withdrawal agreement and they did so only a few weeks ago, and I think that is something worth bearing in mind."

Whatever Boris Johnson said to the ERG, if we judge people on their actions, it is quite possible he brings back the Withdrawal Agreement once more.

The 39 billion is hardly a bargaining chip. It's what we are obliged to pay under the current arrangement we have with the EU. We will pay that sum if we leave. To not pay would result in our biggest and most vital trading partner becoming resentful and uncooperative. As we have yet to achieve any substantial trade deal with anyone else of real significance, I'd suggest that not paying would be suicidal. Won't happen, Nigel.

The 39 billion is not reparation. It is a sum that we have agreed with the EU we should pay in order to honour our commitments to the project. I'd remind you that a vital element of that project, agreed by all 28 members, is that richer countries should make bigger contributions in order that every EU country can remain solvent and make progress with infrastructure. There are obligations on net recipients to use the money in particular ways in line with EU policy. This has, in spite of many a glitch, helped to maintain a relatively prosperous and peaceful EU, which benefits every one of its members.

I seem to remember that Steve Shaw was previously in favour of settling for the 100 billion euro figure that the EU had plucked out of thin air. This reduced figure of £39 billion was a figure accepted in order that discussions could continue with regard to the UK leaving the EU. It was always a case, in line with EU rules, that the figure would be part of the overall agreement on us leaving the EU. As we have not come to any further agreement, the £39 billion is still available as a negotiating point.

Although the £39bn appears to have been agreed, the EU rules say that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.

I'm sorry to have to repeat this, but for some it seems to be overlooked whenever it suits their purposes.

"There’s very much a strong view across the EU that there shouldn’t be any more extensions," Varadkar said on Thursday. "While I have endless patience, some of my colleagues have lost patience, quite frankly, with the UK and there’s enormous hostility to any further extension.

"So I think an extension could really only happen if it were to facilitate something like a general election in the UK or perhaps even something like a second referendum if they decided to have one," the Irish premier continued. "What won’t be entertained is an extension for further negotiations or further indicative votes. The time for that has long since passed."

No doubt if we hit trouble after leaving it will all be due to the EU being vindictive...

"So perhaps you could tell us if we are going to leave on the 31st October, before that date, after that date, with a deal, without a deal. What reparations, if any, will we pay to the EU, What are we going to do with European citizens residing in the UK, what will our relationship with Europe regarding Security be, what are we going to do regarding fishing, farming, banking, insurance and a multitude of other issues."

The 39 billion is not reparation. It is a sum that we have agreed with the EU we should pay in order to honour our commitments to the project. I'd remind you that a vital element of that project, agreed by all 28 members, is that richer countries should make bigger contributions in order that every EU country can remain solvent and make progress with infrastructure. There are obligations on net recipients to use the money in particular ways in line with EU policy. This has, in spite of many a glitch, helped to maintain a relatively prosperous and peaceful EU, which benefits every one of its members. Whatever kind of brexit we have to endure, one thing's for sure: we will continue to trade with the EU. If we want to build a friendly and cooperative trading environment post-brexit it is incumbent on this country to honour the already-agreed financial settlement. In the long term that will prove to have been a very good investment for future cordial relations, a small price to pay. Bejaysus, we will need all the help we can get. A petulant and shameful refusal to pay the bill is the last thing we should be contemplating.

Well Iains, is that your policy or the Conservative Party policy, and if it is Conservative Party Policy when was it decided and by whom with what authority.

Is there any chance of you responding to the rest of my points about the complete lack of a coherent, cohesive and consistent policy by the Conservative Party which you are so keen to maintain that the Labour Party lacks.

I'm going to watch the cricket now on catch-up so you have until tomorrow to consider your reply!

PS At the moment the Conservative Party are in power, they created this debacle, it is their mess and it up to them to sort it out.

PPS If you, for one minute, think that Johnson can do it you really are living in cloud cuckoo land.

The EU have described Brexit as a divorce. In most divorces both parties share the assets. The richer half does not fine the poorer. During our membership of the EU we have contributed positively towards the infrastructure. We should be refunded at least some of that contribution.

"So perhaps you could tell us if we are going to leave on the 31st October, before that date, after that date, with a deal, without a deal. What reparations, if any, will we pay to the EU, What are we going to do with European citizens residing in the UK, what will our relationship with Europe regarding Security be, what are we going to do regarding fishing, farming, banking, insurance and a multitude of other issues."

Do you have an answer for us Iains ..............

Typical of your approach, I don't know what Brexit will bring but I will vote for it. Three years later I been told it won't be good but I'll still vote for it. I will also vote for a party leader who hasn't told me what he thinks of Brexit or what route the UK is going to take.

And some of us not in either party disagree with that, and don't accept it. Brexit is a far right coup, foisted on the population by a criminal political class using the profound ignorance of much of the electorate. It has turmed Britain into a failed state, not far above Zimbabwe. In fact, below Zimbabwe now Mugabe has gone. A country of which I used to be proud, and of which I am now profoundly ashamed. I have to keep apologising to my European colleagues for the shambles that Britain has become. And even today, Barclay, bleating to Barnier that its not fair, that the EU position which they have held all along, turns out to be the EU position as they have said. Its come to a pretty pass, hasn't it, when Rory Stewart is the nearest to a sane voice that we have in the contest to be the next PM. And apparantly, being forced to deny, that he is still a remainer! Being forced to deny that he still has working brain cells. Not many, but more that all of the other contenders put together.

At least Raab has gone. As with Mike Pence on the other thread, probably more dangerous than Johnson because he actually believes all of the shit he is spouting.

The fact that it was the pig sticker frightened of the man toad that caused all this seems to escape our resident right whingers (yes I did spell it right) so they are happy to blame Corbyn who had nowt to do with it. You couldn't make this stuff up.

"The official Tory policy is leave and to honour the referendum result."

The official Labour policy is to leave and honour the referendum result.

Some of us in the party disagree with that, as we know that the referendum was a constitutional disgrace informed by campaigns of lies, therefore not worthy of honouring. We also know that the government can't be constitutionally bound by the result as the referendum was advisory only, in spite of Cameron's fatuous promises about it. We also know that the promised trade deals have not materialised and that brexit will certainly transform this country into a basket case. There's a dictator for life who doesn't need us running the most powerful and biggest economy on earth and an unstable lunatic in the White House, and we're about to be confronted by a resentful and uncooperative EU to boot once we leave. Very little else is going matter post-brexit. Well, we can always do a deal with Switzerland to remove tariffs on imported cuckoo clocks and army knives. So some of us want the one and only thing that is remotely in this country's interests, and that is to have the decision reversed. I'm coming round to the opinion that the only way to do that is to have a public vote in light of the new information we have that we didn't have in 2016, much as I'm appalled by the very idea of referendums in the first place. Whatever happens, or doesn't happen, in the next six months will be divisive and cause much trouble. No one route through this mess would be more or less divisive than any other. We can blame Cameron for that, a man of no vision whatsoever. And one of yours, not one of ours.

The politicians in parliament have been blamed for the impasse. But that isn't fair, as they are simply doing their job. You can't hand over a big decision to an ignorant public then blame MPs for failing to agree on what to do next to clear up the resulting bloody mess. The decision should have been in their hands all along. Of course, that would have meant staying in the EU. Which is why you prefer the idea of a rabble-rousing referendum, sidestepping and utterly subverting our parliamentary democracy. The democratic deficit in all this is entirely down to your lot and has nothing to do with remainers wanting a rethink. After all, your referendum was merely a rethink of the 1975 one, the overwhelming result of which YOU have never accepted. Just a little reminder once again that this brexit is one hundred percent a Tory brexit, cooked up by you and yours. Constantly bleating about Labour's brexit policy is, frankly, risible.

Sp perhaps you could tell us if we are going to leave on the 31st October, before that date, after that date, with a deal, without a deal. What reparations, if any, will we pay to the EU, What are we going to do with European citizens residing in the UK, what will our relationship with Europe regarding Security be, what are we going to do regarding fishing, farming, banking, insurance and a multitude of other issues.

Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you — where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast — man's laws, not God's — and if you cut them down — and you're just the man to do it — d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.

There is nothing in that report either to suggest that any wrongdoing could be attributed to Labour and there is nothing in that report that suggests the extent of issues still being investigated. It looks to me like a matter which, after proper scrutiny, will be quickly forgotten. Some of the allegations already have been. That IS in the report.

Sacco and Vanzetti's judge:

"He was heard to declare "They should get the chair They're Reds and what more do you need?"

A General Election would seem the only clean way to solve the present impasse. But it is fraught with all sorts of possibilities. Tory and Labour will have to state a very clear position on Brexit (a herculean task for both) How real is the support for the Lib Dems? How much support would the Brexit party lose to a Boris premiership? How real is the Brexit party threat How many MPs will be deselected by their own constituency parties? What confidence, if any, can be placed in polls prior to an election.

Any party manifestos will have to take very clear positions on Brexit. Flimflam will not work a second time around. Labour will have to come off the fence or be destroyed. The Tories will have to support Brexit or be destroyed. It will be a 4 horse race with two running as dark horses. Determining the winner will be a challenge, even for the bookies.

However"A ComRes undertaken for The Daily Telegraph suggests that the current voting intention sees Labour ahead with 27 percent, and the Conservatives four percent behind with 23 percent of the vote.

According to the poll, which was undertaken between June 7 and 9, the Brexit Party would achieve 22 percent of the vote, the Liberal Democrats 17 percent, and the Green Party five percent.

Bringing up the rear would be the SNP with three percent, and Plaid Cymru, Change UK and UKIP all with one percent.

The ComRes poll was of 2,017 British adults and taken between June 7 and 9. Whereashe latest poll from YouGov shows the Brexit Party remains in the lead for general election voting intention.

The poll, conducted on behalf of the Times between June 9 and 10, asked 1,702 British adults what their voting intention was in Westminster. The Brexit Party took the lead with 26 percent of the vote.

It seems quite likely to me the a Johnson PM would force a no-deal through then immediately call a general election. My expectation is that on the morning after a no-deal the ordinary person will attempt to go about their job exactly as they did before, unless somebody tells them otherwise, and this will carry on until some part or drug or rule from on high stops them. Stockpiling will delay this point (but Christmas is a complication if the October date holds.) So it could be a month or two before no-deal really bites.

So the Tory pitch would be:

a) we have delivered Brexit b) the claims it will all collapse have proven unfounded c) we need a majority to deliver everything in the manifesto.

That could be a winning path, as it weakens Farage a lot and the fears of the remainers seem unfounded. But the longer it is delayed, the greater the risks, as no-deal Brexit is more like a house of cards - it can stand successfully for a while, but if it falls, it could do quite dramatically. Wait until the legal limit for an election and that could have happened. Do it early enough after a no-deal and you will get away with it.

Labour Party members will have the opportunity to force Jeremy Corbyn to commit fully to a fresh Brexit referendum, after the party bowed to pressure to stage a consultation. The grassroots survey will be launched next month and conclude by early August, The Independent can reveal – paving the way for the policy shift as a new hardline Conservative prime minister arrives in No 10, supporters believe.

We will see if this actually happens - so far only the Independent seems to be claiming it will - and we will see how the results are handled come the conference. Calling for a referendum, for example, does not say what the question on such a referendum would be. Combine this with the rising suspicion that a Johnson PM would be forced into a general election and how the two strands combine will be very significant: will Labour commit to a referendum on any Brexit deal as part of its manifesto, for example?